Loy’s letter of April 2, 1935 to his cousin expressed his support for him in his testing times and his own personal outrage at the way the modernists had made their case against him. He described the action of the General Assembly as “an unqualified outrage—unconstitutional, ultra vires, un-Presbyterian, and altogether prompted by a spirit of narrow-mindedness and intolerance.” Loy believed the outcome of the case was assured from the beginning and “the cards were stacked against you.” But he also related the comments of Moderator of New York Presbytery Russell that the actions against Machen had backfired to a degree because the way he had been treated did not look good to the general public. Loy added that lots “of men who are not on your side will see that the boot has been shifted to the other foot, and that the very ones who have been raising the cry of intolerance have been guilty of that unpardonable sin themselves” to which he added that he could not “help feeling that this adverse decision is really in your favor and that it will lead to vindication in the end.”

Mary and John Jones Gresham had two children that survived to marry and have families, Mary Jones and Thomas Baxter. Mary Jones, who was also called Minnie, would live in Baltimore with her husband Arthur Webster Machen and they would enjoy the births of three sons, one of which was born in 1881 and named John Gresham Machen. At the time of his birth, Thomas and his wife Tallulah had been raising their son LeRoy in Madison, Georgia, since his birth September 21, 1871. When Thomas and Lula Gresham moved their family to Baltimore their residence was close to that of the Machens. Gresham and Loy, which was the name Machen most often used for his cousin, became more and more like brothers than just first cousins because of their many opportunities to socialize, share common interests, and experiences. The ten-year age difference between the boys put Loy in the position of being like an older brother to J. Gresham Machen.
The purpose of this article is to consider the relationship of J. Gresham Machen and LeRoy Gresham following their years growing up together in Baltimore. This will be accomplished using a selection of letters written between April 1921 and April 1935. The letters will show that the two cousins continued to be both friends and confidants regarding issues of common interest including the situation with the Presbyterians as it developed in the 1920s in both the PCUSA and the PCUS.
LeRoy Gresham
LeRoy Gresham’s education included study in Lawrenceville Academy in New Jersey before he travelled the few miles down the road to Princeton University to earn both a B.A. and a M.A. Returning to Baltimore, Loy studied for one year at Johns Hopkins University and then went to the University of Maryland for his legal studies earning the LL.D. Initially, he followed in his father’s footsteps by practicing law in Baltimore beginning in 1896 but then after six years of work he realized that God was calling him to the pastoral ministry. Loy was just over thirty years of age when he began seminary studies. Unlike Machen’s choice for seminary, Loy selected Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, where he earned the B.D. {4} in 1906. He was licensed that May by Potomac Presbytery of the PCUS, and then he was ordained by Orange Presbytery in November of the same year. Rev. Gresham’s first call was a brief one of three years to a church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. His next call would be his last because he would serve the church in Salem, Virginia, beginning in 1909 and remain there until his retirement in 1946. LeRoy was honored with the DD by both King College in Bristol and Washington and Lee in Lexington, Virginia. Loy had married Jessie Rhett in 1903, and they had two sons, Francis, who was the youngest, and Thomas Baxter.
Machen Recommends LeRoy for a New Call and Preaches at Hollins College[2]
At one point in LeRoy Gresham’s ministry in Salem, Machen mentioned Loy in a letter to Rev. Stuart “Bill” Hutchison as a possible candidate for his soon to be vacant pulpit with the hopes that he would recommend Loy to the pulpit committee. The opportunity that Machen believed could be a suitable change for Loy was just across the state in the First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk. Bill Hutchison had been the minister of the PCUS church for about ten years, and his new call was to the East Liberty Church, PCUSA in Pittsburgh. If Loy was to move to Norfolk, the change would take him from a congregation of over three-hundred members to one of nearly a thousand. Dr. Machen believed that the Norfolk pulpit would be a good fit for Cousin Loy, so he presented his case to Bill regarding his qualifications.
I have come frequently into contact with his work at Salem, and every contact with it has been an inspiration and a benediction. Though on a smaller scale, it is more like your work at Norfolk than almost anything else I have seen. That is to say, it is the work of a genuine minister of the gospel, who is in full possession of the necessary intellectual and other gifts. I do not believe that a more absolutely unselfish, consecrated man ever entered the ministry than my cousin. To win one soul he will pour forth unstintedly all the treasures of mind and heart that God has given him. And that kind of painstaking work has produced a congregation which it is a joy to see.
Machen went on to comment to Bill that the Salem congregation believed Loy was content with his call and would not leave the church for any reason. He added that Loy believed “his great duty is to his own congregation, and that, especially since his work there is so highly blessed of God, he has absolutely no time to spend upon any attempt to seek a larger field.” Despite the confidence of the congregation regarding Loy’s happiness as their pastor, Machen thought there was a possibility his cousin would leave Salem for another call when he believed God was calling him to do so. He commented, “I am sure that Loy will not decline the real call when it comes.” The letter shows Machen’s exuberance as he spoke up for his cousin because he wanted the best for him, and it looked like First Presbyterian Church in Norfolk was a call suited for his gifts.
As the letter draws to its close, Machen mentioned that it was his hope to have a week of hiking in the Natural Bridge area of Virginia with Loy before he preached the baccalaureate sermon at Hollins College for Women in Roanoke the evening of Sunday, June 5. Though the {5} sermon is untitled, Machen’s text was 2 Corinthians 4:18, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” According to the summary by the writer for Hollins Magazine, Machen’s emphasis was on the need for a deep faith that provides a solid and long-lasting foundation for Christian living. Machen also referred to the familiar text from Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” He encouraged the new graduates to pursue the Kingdom first and establish a sure foundation for practical Christianity. Hollins Magazine commented further.
Mr. Machen’s words served as a reminder to us that although we may aspire to be of much practical service to the world, our deeds will be futile unless they have beneath them a deep spiritual raison d’ếtre. We need first of all to be sincere believers in Christianity, and “it will follow as the night follows day” that our words and actions will have an unfailing power for good in the world.[3]
The baccalaureate sermon presented the simple message that Machen so often emphasized—the practical aspects of Christianity must be built upon a solid foundation of doctrine, which in this case he corresponded with seeking first the Kingdom of God. If the practical is sought without first having a solid foundation, then only a superficial and self-serving obedience will follow.
Christianity and Liberalism, New Testament Greek for Beginners, and the PCUS[4]
The year 1923 was a particularly important one for Machen’s academic career because two of what would become best-selling books, Christianity and Liberalism, and shortly thereafter, New Testament Greek for Beginners were published.[5] In a letter of May 2, 1923, Loy thanked Gresham for the recently received copy of his just released Greek grammar about which he observed, “it looks like an excellent little book” and “the preface is most interesting,” but he did not think he could assess it thoroughly until he had the opportunity to use it, hopefully, with his youngest son, Francis. Little did Loy or Machen know that the Greek textbook would be long appreciated and esteemed after their time. It remained in print with Macmillan for years, after which it was published by other companies with an updated edition in 2003.
Loy mentioned that he had “one or two interesting side-lights” on Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. The local newspaper, Roanoke World-News, had published in its literary column a review of the book written by a member of Loy’s congregation whom he identified as Dr. Painter. Loy said the man was a former Lutheran minister, who was a widely read man, had a keen sense of humor, and was “altogether a most agreeable man personally.” But Loy speculated that the reason Dr. Painter was no longer a minister was because he fell out with the Lutherans, which Loy believed was due to his being “the only man in the ministry that I ever heard of that was president of a cigarette-machine company; and I am inclined to think that his business had something to do with his not getting along with the Lutherans.”
Dr. Painter was retired Professor of Modern Languages and Literature F. V. N. Painter of Roanoke College.[6] He was an accomplished scholar having written a number of books including A History of English Literature, Introduction to English {6} Literature, Introduction to American Literature, and several others. He was ordained into the Lutheran ministry and began teaching in 1878. In order to have more time for writing, and apparently as Loy mentioned, to try his hand at manufacturing by becoming president of the Bonsack Company, he retired from the college in 1906. The Bonsack Company had been founded by James Bonsack to manufacture the cigarette-rolling machine he had patented.[7]
Painter’s two-book review is titled, “Orthodoxy and Modernism,” with Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism representing orthodoxy and Percy Stickney Grant’s The Religion of Main Street representing the modernist perspective.[8] The review provides a brief account of Machen’s chief points as contrasted with those of Grant’s book. Machen is described as one of the “stand-patters,” while Grant is presented as a member of the “radicals.” Machen’s teaching regarding the plenary inspiration of Scripture, doctrines such as original sin, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and substitutionary atonement were not in accord with the modern, progressive, and liberal needs of the era. Grant’s progressive and liberal views are said to fit the needs of the scientific age and he believed traditional, creedal doctrine to be “archaic if not false.” Grant commented further that “‘in Adam’s fall we sinned all’ was the old theology” and its associated emphasis on sin “crushed humanity.” Painter ended his nine-hundred-word review saying, “After carefully reading these two theological polemics, this reviewer turned with relief and refreshment to the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which Paul touched the stars, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.”
As a promoter of Machen’s work, Loy was crafty in his method. While a woman Bible teacher from Union Seminary Training School in Richmond was participating in the Presbyterial Auxiliary meeting, she visited the Greshams and found a copy of Christianity and Liberalism strategically placed in the house for her sure sighting. She picked up what Loy described as “bait” and commented that she was delighted with the book. Loy responded by giving her one of his extra copies, thanked her for her interest, and encouraged her to continue reading his cousin’s work.
Machen responded to Loy’s letter within a few days and after informing him that he would be too busy to visit Salem until the next year, he encouraged Loy regarding his selection to attend the PCUS General Assembly for his presbytery, but he also expressed concern about what he saw as troubling signs in the PCUS. Machen told his cousin that the “Southern Church puzzles and disturbs me.” In particular, he had noticed recently that Dr. Leighton Stewart, whom he described as “a liberal propagandist in China,” had recently been examined extensively and admitted into the Presbytery of East Hanover in Richmond. He also found unsettling the collective review of books in the spring issue of The Union Seminary Review that included Harry Emerson Fosdick’s, Christianity and Progress, 1922, and Charles A. Ellwood’s, The Reconstruction of Religion: A Sociological View, 1922.[9] The reviewer, John Calvin Siler, a Union alumnus and a pastor in Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia, concluded the review saying, “We must read these books not as theological treatises, but as books on practical religion. These books have no special message on doctrine, but they have a burning message on practice.” The separation of doctrine from practice was one of Machen’s chief concerns with the PCUSA, and seeing the same thinking in the denomination of his youth bothered him greatly. He added, “It looks to me sometimes as though the Southern Church were going to give Christianity up without even being conscious that anything particularly worth while is being lost.” However, he believed there were some “splendid men” who were concerned about the issues taking place in the PCUS such as R.C. Reed of Columbia Seminary.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Christian faith is an intimate relationship of the heart and mind, yet we live in a physical world that requires our bodies being brought into subjection and being yielded to the lordship of Christ. The Christian life is a war, and that war must be waged in our bodies (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 10:3-6; 1 Pet. 5:8-10). It would help us to understand the basics of spiritual warfare; otherwise, we will be rendered useless in the area of service through our spiritual gifts. The Bible teaches us that there is a battle going on for control of our soul. The center of our being is our soul. Your body, which houses the soul and spirit, becomes subject to temptation of the world and the devil.

That belief predicates behavior is an axiom of truth I learned early on in my ministry. It was a favorite phrase of my mentor. The concept behind the thought is thoroughly biblical. Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” Clearly, from a scriptural point of view, what we believe determines the way in which we behave. It therefore greatly behooves us to believe correctly in order to behave correctly.
Justifying Sin
The Scriptures are explicit in their declaration that the properly attuned mind is critical to living the Christian life in a manner that would please God. Sadly, we are living in days where in order to justify certain sins the mindset of some professing Christian leaders has been to dismiss any reasonable responsibility for the way one thinks.
We should consider that within the ranks of the evangelical church there have been a number of leading pastors and theologians who have come to the false conclusion that sexual orientation (a state of mind) is something that individuals cannot control. In other words, they believe that a person who has same sex attraction (SSA) is born with that as an orientation. If this is so then it means that they should not be held accountable for thinking in accordance with their alleged orientation.
Thinking Like Christ
This needs to be examined in light of Scripture which clearly contradicts that conclusion. For example, we know that if we are to follow Christ, we must strive to be more like Him. The key to acting like Christ is thinking like Christ which is one of Paul’s main points in the book of Philippians. He says, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (2:5).
Paul was admonishing us to think like Jesus and to develop the same type of attitude that He had. Another version translates the verse, “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” (NIV). Bob Utley frames it this way: ““have this attitude in yourself” – This is a PRESENT ACTIVE IMPERATIVE. Believers are commanded to continue to think (phroneō) like Christ. The goal of Christianity is Christlikeness in thought and deed” (emphasis mine).
Renewing Our Minds
The only way we can have the transformation necessary to live in a Christ honoring manner is to renew our minds (Rom. 12:1-2). This is the only way we can fulfill the will of God for our lives.  Paul tells believers here not to be conformed (suschematizesthe) to a worldly standard but rather to be transformed (metamorphousthe) by that renewal.  In Second Corinthians, Paul clarifies that the renewal of the inner man should take place, “day by day” (4:16).
We know that thought precedes action and that is why Paul was insistent on this point: you can never live the life of a Christian until you genuinely have the mind of a Christian. How we think is critical to our success in living the way Paul instructs us to live. The truth is, the only One to ever measure up fully to the standard was Christ Himself, so Paul sets forth the mind of Christ as our supreme example (Phil. 2:1-17). He will follow this instruction by using Timothy and Epaphroditus as examples, showing us that we, too, can live godly lives that honor the Lord (Phil 2:19-30). The excuse that many have is, “Well, I’m not Jesus.” No, you are not, but with the help of the Holy Spirit you can grow to be more like Him. We should never lose sight of the goal, being “conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29).
Read More
Related Posts:

Historical study implicitly reminds us that the contours of our social, cultural, and material context could have been different from how they are. It challenges us to consider whether some of those alternatives and paths-not-taken might actually be more conducive to growth in godliness than those down which we are currently walking. 

On the most recent episode of the Deep Roots Podcast, Tim Ward, Eric Ortlund, and I had the chance to talk about church history. Specifically, we touched on the whys of church history. As in, why bother with it all? At a theological college like Oak Hill, church history traditionally sits alongside biblical studies, systematic theology, and practical theology as one of the four main areas for study and reflection. And yet, unlike the other three, which all have a fairly straightforward and obvious relevance for the training of future church leaders, the need for church history sometimes seems less obvious. Retracing the issues and controversies of a hundred years ago can seem a bit remote from the pressing needs of ministry today. So, why do we bother with it?
If we were to survey Christians and ask them why someone ought to bother with church history, I suspect that most people would suggest that history is helpful to us insofar as it provides lessons to learn and models to emulate. So, for example, to study the life and martyrdom of Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) is to learn what Christian courage and resolve can look like. The historical account of Cranmer’s last days becomes a vivid piece of practical instruction and an inspiration to all believers who face hostility and persecution. Or we might consider the great preachers of the eighteenth-century evangelical revival and be renewed in our zeal for evangelism and mission. This is surely a right and good use of church history. Whether through Paul’s exhortations to emulate his own life and example (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17), or the catalogue of saints celebrated for their faith in Hebrews 11, the Bible itself gives ample warrant for reflecting carefully on the lives of other Christians.
But as we look to the past for examples to imitate, we should recognise that there is more to the story than simply finding and highlighting the virtues and good deeds of exceptional individuals. That is a good thing to do, but, having done it, we can also start to consider how the historical contexts in which exemplary men and women lived might have helped to shape them into the kind of people that they were. In so doing, we move towards one of the deepest and most profound reasons for studying church history: namely, to develop a keener sense of our own place within the flow of historical events. What do I mean? By default, we all tend to imagine that the circumstances which characterise our own time and place represent a very natural, obvious way of being and doing. The way I dress, prepare my food, structure my time, and fill my leisure hours are often simply assumed as givens, and I live them out without much active reflection. In a hundred different ways, great and small, the cultural and social trappings which collectively constitute my manner of living, thinking, and relating to others are simply ‘the way things are’ – or so we easily assume.
Read More
Related Posts: